Disconnected change processes tend to be an unfortunate reality for many information technology organizations, as various systems that are typically used to manage changes in an information technology infrastructure tend to not be linked. Existing systems designed to manage changes in an information technology, infrastructure tend to employ silos of automation, which are often disconnected from one another. For example, help desk systems typically have little or no visibility into changes that may affect end users that the help desk systems are designed to assist, even though the changes are often a major cause of the service disruptions that result in the end users calling the help desk. Conversely, developers often need access to operational system configurations in order to understand the potential impact that any changes that are to be implemented for the information technology infrastructure.
As such, managing changes to an information technology infrastructure within separate domains, through different methods, and with disconnected automation tools can often limit visibility, reduce control over the change process, and introduce a greater potential for errors. Nonetheless, although one of the primary purposes of the change management discipline is to reduce risk to business when changes occur, existing change management systems tend to fall short in providing global visibility into the cost and impact that the changes may cause. This drawback tends to be especially important in an information technology organization where the relationships between resources are complex. Due to the disconnected nature of automated silos that are typically used in change management, the ability to capture and communicate planned changes will only be as good as the people involved, or alternatively will be limited by the weakest link in the chain.
When human resources are relied upon to assess the impact of proposed changes to often intricate information technology infrastructures, even well planned and well organized changes can fail. In fact, many leading information technology analysts have indicated that failed changes are often a major cause of system outages and errors, which may result in a business suffering negative consequences such as financial loss, project delays, and customer dissatisfaction, among other things. In many cases, changes may fail and increase risk due to factors that are overlooked because of the lack of global visibility. For example, changes may be scheduled during a period that overlaps with other scheduled changes, changes may unintentionally impact related systems and business services, changes may involve resources that are unavailable outside of planned downtime, or the changes may requires resources that are unavailable at the scheduled time.
Accordingly, systems that manage changes to an information technology infrastructure should include mechanisms for performing analysis that can prevent these and other types of conflicts from occurring. However, existing systems have traditionally delegated this analysis to human resources, leading to an increased likelihood of errors, miscommunications, or other problems that can result in potential conflicts remaining undetected. Moreover, the complexity involved with assessing every potential conflict may be astronomical in organizations that have large information technology infrastructures. As such, trusting that human resources can suitably identify every potential conflict associated with a proposed change tends to be unfeasible (if not impossible) in many contexts. Thus, existing change management systems tend to suffer from various drawbacks.